Month: October 2017

FOR THE LAST year, TheJournal.ie has been covering allegations made by former members of the Irish Air Corps that exposure to harmful chemicals during their careers has led to the untimely deaths of many of their colleagues.

It’s the contention of a number of Air Corps members that the effects of the chemicals contributed to dozens of workers at the Baldonnel Airfield becoming ill.

In a protected disclosure made by one of the workers earlier this year, it has also been alleged that the partners of male members of the force suffered serious fertility issues and a number of miscarriages. Other children, according to the protected disclosure, are living with life-changing illnesses and, in some cases, have died.

Today, after receiving details verified through death certificates of each of those who has passed away, we can publish details of 45 deceased members: their ages, their causes of death and what position they held in the Air Corps.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

QUESTION NO: 437

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the number of years the State Claims Agency has been auditing the Defence Forces. [44987/17]

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)

The State Claims Agency have conducted Health & Safety Management System audits of the Defence Forces since 2006. These type of audits were completed in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2015.

*****

It now comes to light why the State Claims Agency are fighting Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors with surprising vigour and happy to let personnel die rather than assist them.

The State Claims Agency, and by association the National Treasury Management Agency, are equally culpable & negligent in the Air Corps toxic chemical scandal which shows their state wide Health & Safety Management System audit regime is built on sand.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

QUESTION NO: 38

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his views on a person’s (details supplied) contention contained within their report on health and safety procedures at Casement Aerodrome that they lacked the powers, experience and competence to investigate the allegations made by the whistleblowers; the reason the scope of a review was so limited despite assurances made by him in Dáil Éireann that the review would adequately deal with the allegations made in the protective disclosures received by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44025/17]

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)

QUESTION NO: 47

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans to commission a second review of claims by former Air Corps staff that say their exposure to toxic chemicals from the late 1980s to the early 2000s caused chronic illnesses in view of the fact that the person commissioned to perform the first review (details supplied) has stated that they were not in a position to consider the substances in use or implications for human health arising from such use in view of the fact these issues are outside their competence. [43976/17]

Séan Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)

QUESTION NO: 165

o ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the reason the report into allegations contained within protective disclosures relating to Casement Aerodrome fails to address that staff are at greater risk of serious illness as a result of their service at Baldonnel; and his views on whether these serious matters can only be properly assessed through a thorough health study and survey of current and former members. [44041/17]

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 38, 47 and 65 together.

The health and welfare of the men and women of the Defence Forces are a priority for me; that is why I ensured that protected disclosures alleging exposure to chemical and toxic substances were investigated by an independent third party. The reviewer’s report has indicated that he felt that given the breadth of the remit of the Terms of Reference he commented in general terms on the Defence Force safety regime.

It must be remembered that prior to the receipt of the disclosures, litigation had first been initiated in relation to the subject matter of the disclosures. This therefore complicated the approach to be taken in developing any parallel process. Notwithstanding this significant challenge, I put in place just such a parallel process. In light of the legally complex situation, I believe it was appropriate that an experienced legal professional was appointed.

It was the view of the independent reviewer that the Courts are best placed to examine issues in relation to allegations which were already subject to litigation. This is so given the historic nature of the complaints, and, significantly, that it potentially affects the reputations and good names of individuals. What the report shows is the difficulty in putting a parallel process to the courts in place.

The report also notes that the Health and Safety Authority is the appropriate statutory body to deal with such allegations.

I have furnished the report to those who made the protected disclosures and, before considering any further steps, I will await their views.

Separately and in parallel to the independent review, following an inspection in 2016, the Air Corps has continued to work with the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) to improve its health and safety regime. I have been informed by the military authorities that the HSA has formally noted the considerable progress made to-date by the Defence Forces towards implementation of a safety management system for the control of hazardous substances. Subject to completion of the improvement plan the HSA investigation is closed. However, it must be noted that in the Air Corps health and safety is a matter of ongoing monitoring, supervision and adjustment.

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 199

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the action he will take in view of the recognition in a review (details supplied) of Air Corps whistleblower claims that the author was not in a position to consider the substances in use or implications for human health arising from such use as these issues are outside their competence. [43179/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 200

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if a comprehensive inquiry will take place into the health and safety regime in the Air Corps and compliance with that regime in a period stretching back over 20 years in view of a review (details supplied). [43180/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 201

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the action he will take in view of the description of a review (details supplied) by its own author as an informal review; and if a formal review will now take place. [43181/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 202

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the action he will take in view of the finding of a review (details supplied) by its own author that it is their view that a review of the kind envisaged by the terms of reference is impractical and therefore they can only comment in general terms on the safety regime; the way in which he plans to deal with this identified impracticality; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43182/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 203

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his views on the observation in a review (details supplied) that, in the context of a work environment subject to military discipline in which obedience to the instructions of a superior is a key requirement, there are obvious difficulties for a person raising safety concerns; his further views on the view of the informants in this matter that they were not able adequately to raise safety concerns and that when they did raise concerns these were ignored; and the action that will be taken to address the difficulties and concerns of the informants. [43183/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 204

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his views on the observation in a review that the Defence Forces need to be able to demonstrate that an adequate system is in place to ensure that safety concerns can be raised by a member of any rank and to show that it has an ethos which makes safety the concern and responsibility of all; and the action he will take to achieve this. [43184/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 205

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his views on the observation in a review (details supplied) that the military authorities need to ensure that the role of the Health and Safety Authority in relation to workplace safety is understood and that there is an effective system in place to enable persons to raise safety concerns. [43185/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 206

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if the military authorities ensure that documentation and records detailing compliance with safety regimes exist and that they are readily accessible to staff as per the observation in a review (details supplied). [43186/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 207

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he will authorise an independent and comprehensive health assessment of the informants’ claims and of Defence Forces health and safety records in dealing with hazardous chemicals over the past 25 years. [43187/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 208

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the action he will take in view of the recognition in a review (details supplied) of Air Corps whistleblower claims that the author was not in a position to judge whether there is now or was at the relevant time an actual level of exposure which was in fact potentially harmful. [43188/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 209

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the action he will take in view of the observation in a review (details supplied) of Air Corps whistleblower claims that all Defence Forces personnel are supposed to receive a routine medical at regular intervals but there appears to have been no special provision for personnel involved in maintenance work or a special alert in relation to persons that may have handled toxic chemicals. [43189/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 210

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the action he will take in view of the observation in a review (details supplied) of Air Corps whistleblower claims that risk assessment material which the author saw are not comprehensive enough to provide a clear view of the basis for the assessment made. [43190/17]

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 199 to 210, inclusive, together.

I have made it clear that the health and welfare of the men and women of the Defence Forces is a priority for me and therefore, I ensured that protected disclosures alleging exposure to chemical and toxic substances whilst working in the Air Corps in Baldonnel were investigated by an independent third party. I have furnished the report to those who made the protected disclosures and, before considering any further steps, I will await their views. In light of this and given that some of the allegations relate to matters that are the subject of litigation, commenced before the protected disclosures were made, it would not be appropriate to comment further.

Separately and in parallel to the independent review, following an inspection in 2016, the Air Corps has continued to work with the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) to improve its health and safety regime. I have been informed by the military authorities that the HSA has formally noted the considerable progress made to-date by the Defence Forces towards implementation of a safety management system for the control of hazardous substances. Subject to completion of the improvement plan the HSA investigation is closed. However, it must be noted that in the Air Corps health and safety is a matter of ongoing monitoring, supervision and adjustment.

The Air Corps’ failure to protect workers from exposure to cancer-causing chemicals may have affected thousands of people, causing 100 deaths as well as birth defects and miscarriages, the Dáil heard yesterday.

The claim, previously made in a protected disclosure to the Department of Defence, was aired as opposition politicians increased the pressure on the Government to commission an investigation into working conditions at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnell.

Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin criticised the Government’s efforts to have whistle-blowers’ claims of health and safety mismanagement adequately investigated after the details of an independent report were reported by the Irish Examiner.

Christopher O’Toole, an independent third-party appointed to review the claims, reported that the kind of probe envisaged by the terms of reference he was given by the Department of Defence was “impractical”, given his own lack of expertise in chemical science and medicine.

However, Mr O’Toole did report that appropriate records that demonstrate the Air Corps complied with health and safety standards “are not readily available”.

Putting questions to junior Defence Minister Paul Kehoe in the Dáil yesterday, Sinn Féin Defence spokesman Aengus O’Snodaigh outlined the litany of allegations against the Air Corps, noting claims of “clusters of highly complicated medical conditions, miscarriages, and birth defects among those who worked in those conditions”.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

29. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if a Commission of Investigation into serious allegations of an ineffective or non existent health and safety regime in the Air Corps will be established in view of the fact that a person (details supplied) stated in their report that the allegations made by the three whistle blowers could not be adequately dealt with in the type of informal review they were tasked with carrying out. [44083/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

28. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the action he plans to take on foot of the recent review (details supplied) of Air Corps whistle-blower claims; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44189/17]

Terms of Reference

The review shall encompass a review of all relevant documents held by the Department and the Defence Forces, any additional material as may be supplied or received by the Reviewer, and interviews of such persons as considered appropriate by the Reviewer.

The Reviewer will:

Review the allegations as detailed in the written correspondence to the Minister and determine if –

In the period covered by the disclosure, did the Air Corps comply with relevant Health and Safety standards with regard to the safe use of toxic chemicals and if not what action has been taken in the intervening period to ensure compliance.

In relation the disclosure, provide considered views and observations in relation to the allegations set out.

Provide such other considered views and observations as are considered necessary.

The Reviewer shall be provided with access to all available documentation relevant to the events and any other documentation requested by the Reviewer.

The Reviewer shall be provided with the names of all relevant persons, including serving or retired members of the Defence Forces, or other persons the Reviewer considers appropriate. The Reviewer shall endeavour to interview or take statements from all relevant persons.

The Department of Defence and the Defence Forces shall each appoint a liaison officer to provide the necessary information required in order to conduct the review and to assist the Reviewer in identifying the relevant persons to be interviewed.

The review shall be submitted to the Minister with Responsibility for Defence by the Reviewer.

*****

Please click on the link below to open the report on the Department of Defence website.

Directive 92/85/EC – Pregnant Workers

Objective

The objective of this Directive is to protect the health and safety of women in the workplace when pregnant or after they have recently given birth and women who are breastfeeding.

Contents

Under the Directive, a set of guidelines detail the assessment of the chemical, physical and biological agents and industrial processes considered dangerous for the health and safety of pregnant women or women who have just given birth and are breast feeding.

The Directive also includes provisions for physical movements and postures, mental and physical fatigue and other types of physical and mental stress.

Pregnant and breastfeeding workers may under no circumstances be obliged to perform duties for which the assessment has revealed a risk of exposure to agents, which would jeopardize their safety or health. Those agents and working conditions are defined in Annex II of the Directive.

Member States shall ensure that pregnant workers are not obliged to work in night shifts when medically indicated (subject to submission of a medical certificate).

Employers or the health and safety service will use these guidelines as a basis for a risk evaluation for all activities that pregnant or breast feeding workers may undergo and must decide what measures should be taken to avoid these risks. Workers should be notified of the results and of measures to be taken which can be adjustment of working conditions, transfer to another job or granting of leave.

The Directive grants maternity leave for the duration of 14 weeks of which 2 weeks must occur before birth.

Women must not be dismissed from work because of their pregnancy and maternity for the period from the beginning of their pregnancy to the end of the period of leave from work.

Annex I – Non exhaustive list of agents and working conditions referred to in Art.4 of the directive (assessment and information)

A. Agents

1. Physical agents where these are regarded as agents causing foetal lesions and/or likely to disrupt placental attachment, and in particular:

(g) movements and postures, travelling – either inside or outside the establishment – mental and physical fatigue and other physical burdens connected with the activity of the worker within the meaning of Article 2 of the Directive.

2. Biological agents

Biological agents of risk groups 2, 3 and 3 within the meaning of Article 2 (d) numbers 2, 3 and 4 of Directive 90/679/EEC (¹), in so far as it is known that these agents or the therapeutic measures necessitated by such agents endanger the health of pregnant women and the unborn child and in so far as they do not yet appear in Annex II.

3. Chemical agents

The following chemical agents in so far as it is known that they endanger the health of pregnant women and the unborn child and in so far as they do not yet appear in Annex II:

The Irish Army Air Corps only started carrying out “adequate” risk assessments in the past year so for 25 years pregnant females at Baldonnel were dangerously exposed to Carcinogens, Mutagens & Teratogens.

Any pregnant females working in proximity to running aircraft or aircraft being refueled, such as in the ramp area, or downwind of the ramp were exposed.

Exhaust gasses contain Carbon Monoxide as well as TetraEthyl Lead and other hydrocarbon fumes.

Fuel System Anti Icing additives used by the Irish Army Air Corps included 2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol which is a known to cause reproductive and developmental toxic effects.

Furthermore pregnant females working in or entering into Avionics, ERF or Engineering Wing hangar were being exposed to further known Carcinogens, Mutagens and Teratogens including Dichloromethane, Isocyanates & Trichloroethylene to name but a few.

Due to the fact that the working dress & overalls of technicians were (and still are) brought home to be washed in domestic family washing machines it is extremely likely that pregnant spouses & partners of Air Corps personnel were also affected.

This may have lead to miscarriages, stillbirths, lifelong genetic diseases & developmental conditions such as autism in the children of personnel.

Definitions

Contents

Member States shall take the necessary measures to prohibit work by children. They shall ensure, under the conditions laid down by this Directive, that the minimum working or employment age is not lower than the minimum age at which compulsory full-time schooling – as imposed by national law – ends or 15 years in any event.

This Directive shall apply to any person under 18 years of age having an employment contract or an employment relationship defined by the law in force in a Member State and/or governed by the law in force in a Member State. Exceptions can be adopted by Member States for occasional work or short-term work, involving domestic service in a private household or work regarded as not being harmful, damaging or dangerous to young people in a family undertaking.

The Directive defines “young people” as people under the age of 18 and “children” as young people under the age of 15 or who are still in full-time compulsory education in accordance with national legislation. Adolescents are young people between the ages of 15 and 18 who are no longer in full-time compulsory education in accordance with national legislation.

Member States may make legislative exceptions for the prohibition of work by children not to apply to children employed for the purposes of cultural, artistic, sporting or advertising activities, subject to prior authorisation by the competent authority in each specific case; to children of at least 14 years of age working under a combined work/training scheme or an in-plant work-experience scheme, provided that such work is done in accordance with the conditions laid down by the competent authority; and to children of at least 14 years of age performing light work. Light work can also be performed by children of 13 years of age for a limited number of hours per week in the case of categories of work determined by national legislation.

‘Light work’, as defined in the Directive, shall mean all work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and is not such as to be harmful to their attendance at school, their participation in vocational guidance or training programmes approved by the competent authority or their capacity to benefit from the instruction received.

Employers shall adopt the measures necessary to protect the safety and health of young people, taking particular account of the specific risks which are a consequence of their lack of experience, of absence of awareness of existing or potential risks or of the fact that young people have not yet fully matured. Employers shall implement such measures on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of the hazards to young people in connection with their work according to Art 6/2 of the Directive. The assessment must be made before young people begin work and when there is any major change in working conditions.

The employer shall inform young people and their representatives of possible risks and of all measures adopted concerning their safety and health.

Member States shall prohibit the employment of young people for:

work which is objectively beyond their physical or psychological capacity;

work involving harmful exposure to agents which are toxic, carcinogenic, cause heritable genetic damage, or harm to the unborn child or which in any other way chronically affect human health;

work involving harmful exposure to radiation;

work involving the risk of accidents which it may be assumed cannot be recognised or avoided by young persons owing to their insufficient attention to safety or lack of experience or training;

or work in which there is a risk to health from extreme cold or heat, or from noise or vibration.

Each Member State is responsible for defining the necessary measures applicable in the event of infringement of the provisions of this Directive; these measures must be effective and proportionate to the offence.

It appears the Air Corps failed this directive as soon as young people (apprentices) set foot inside the gates of Casement Aerodrome. At the of time this European Commission directive was issued crumbling asbestos on central heating pipework was present in all 4 landings of the old hostel apprentice accommodation. In fact in previous years apprentices were ordered to carry out asbestos removal without any training, PPE or health surveillance.

Please also note that on the 11th of September 2017 the HSA wrote to the Irish Army Air Corps requesting….

It should be confirmed that the findings of Asbestos Surveys for relevant buildings at the facility, or the corresponding Registers of Asbestos-Containing Materials {ACMs), have been brought to the attention of building managers and/or incorporated into the building management system. You are referred to relevant HSA published guidance – Practical Guidelines on ACM Management and Abatement, Section 7.